5. Discussion

Under its tariffs and rules, GTEC provides service where its operating conditions and facilities permit, and it is not obligated to provide service except under reasonable conditions. (See Sched. Cal. P.U.C. D&R Nos. 1 and 2.) Special construction charges and line extension charges are required where the customer is located away from dedicated streets, existing easements, or routes already established by the utility. (See Sched. Cal. P.U.C. D&R Nos. 2, 34, and 35.) Applicants may be required to pay such charges in advance. (See Sched. P.U.C. D&R No. 35.) GTEC estimates the line extension and special construction charges here to be more than $800,000. (See Attachment to GTEC Motion to Dismiss.)

The Commission has repeatedly stated that under Pub. Util. Code § 1702, the only causes of action that can be litigated in complaint cases are violations of tariff rule, orders, general orders or statutes. (See, e.g. Gleason v. Del Oro Water Co. (1992) 43 CPUC2d 524; Keller v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. and Pacific Bell (1992) 44 CPUC2d 1.)

Complainant here acknowledges that GTEC is not required to spend $800,000 to extend telephone service to the resort area, and it does not allege that GTEC has violated any provision of law, or rule or order of the Commission.

Complainant has established the compelling need for reliable telecommunications service in the Tioga Pass area. With the help of Commission staff and GTEC, complainant has explored various alternatives for obtaining telephone service. While no immediate relief has developed, complainant has brought its story to the attention of individuals and agencies that may eventually provide 911 service and other services to the area.

As to this complaint action, however, GTEC is entitled to a ruling on its motion to dismiss. In the absence of any alleged violation by the utility, and in the absence of any proposed relief that this Commission is empowered to provide, the motion to dismiss is granted. This complaint proceeding is closed.